Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pat Nixon


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:05, 23 August 2008.

Pat Nixon

 * Nominator(s): Happyme22 (talk)

I'm nominating this article as an FA because I feel that the substantial additons, mulitple copyedits, and content make it FA worthy. It is very well cited, a Good article, and recently underwent a peer review. I feel it is ready and fulfills the FA criteria. Happyme22 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Until somebody else replies who has thoroughly looked over the article, I will start off by pointing out that the prose doesn't tickle me as FA's really should. Some statements are just...well boring. No offense. But more specifically, I dont think this statement is right:


 * "Former President Nixon survived her by ten months". Doesn't really make sense, survived isnt the right word at all. I would personally prefer 'outlived' or something similar, survived isn't correct. Domiy (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know that's pretty common English... gren グレン 06:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, Domiy. I have to agree with Grenavitar here, in that saying one person survived another person is pretty common English. The insertion of that statement was recommended during the peer review. If you have a problem with other parts of the prose, could you please point out specific examples? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: I use "survived" in this sense every day (then again, I'm an estates lawyer). --Coemgenus 15:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, FirstLadies.org strikes me as not the best reference.  The National First Ladies Library may be reliable but I think we'd be better off having stronger/scholarly sources even if it is only for trivial data.  Although, someone more familiar with FA's will know if it's necessary.  It also seems that someone of this prominence could use more sources for corroboration. gren グレン 06:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. Right off the bat, let me say that Nancy Reagan, the first article on an American first lady to become featured, uses her biography from the National First Ladies Library to cite many statements. And that article passed FAC back in November 2007 without this being an issue. The source seems reliable, just as biographies from presidential libraries are generally reliable. Here is the bibliography used to write the source in question, which includes seven pages of reliable books, newspaper and magazine articles. Happyme22 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Hillary Rodham Clinton article also cites her National First Ladies Library biography a number of times. I've found it to be a good source, and one of the better capsule biographies of her out there.  In two Hillary FACs, the quality of it hasn't been challenged either.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments There don't seem to be any biographies of Pat Nixon that are third-party. There is the biography by her daughter, but that's not going to give the needed distance, so in the absence of another biography, the first ladies' project is probably as good a balance as possible. If a better biography is written, of course, it should be used. Sources otherwise look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I fixed a couple of typos!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The biography by her daughter is extremely comprehensive. Despite that, I have attempted to use it as sparingly as possible. I will check around to see if any others are out there. Happyme22 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments on images —This is part of a comment by Awadewit   which was interrupted by the following:
 * Image:PatNixon.jpg - Source link does not take us to image.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that this is a WH photo? (I may have missed it.) Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it appears that the image source page does not explicitly state that the image was a work of the White House, though it does say that at the Nixon Library. I have emailed the library and am expecting a response shortly. In the mean time, I will replace the image with another. Happyme22 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Replacement checks out (although the first image is better). Awadewit (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:NIXONinaugurationday.gif - Source link does not work.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Pat Nixon greets White House visitors 1969.png - National Archives link does not work.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Pat Nixon flowers.gif - There is no link to the source.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:NIXONSonthegreatwall.gif - Source link does not work. Could we get a date as well?
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Pat Nixon poses 1970.gif - There is no link to the source.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:NIXONSandFORDS.jpg - Could a date be added to this image? It would help other users.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Pat nixon.jpg - Is there a more specific link for the source for this image? Also, do we know the portrait painter's name and the date of the portrait?
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Funeral Service for Pat Nixon.jpg - I am unconvinced as of yet that we need this fair use image. The rationale does not indicate why we need an image - wouldn't words suffice to describe her funeral? This is not a particularly good photo and I cannot see how the reader's understanding is being significantly enhanced by it (WP:NFCC #8).
 * Done I have deleted the image as well. Happyme22 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

These issues should be relatively easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will fix these problems and remove the fair use image. Done Happyme22 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Why doesn't the toolbox at the top right of this page include spell check? Right now, the Pat Nixon article says that she "gratuated."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but where is that? I checked the "Education and career" section and I don't see 'graduated' spelled incorrectly. Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. In the lead, it says: "She gratuated from high school."  Since the tool at the top right does not include spell check, I'd suggest copying and pasting the article into an MS Word document, and doing spell check that way.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice catch! I will do the Word document suggestion right now. Happyme22 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the article and fixed the spelling errors. There shouldn't be anymore. Thanks for the heads up! --Happyme22 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, my pleasure.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know a whole lot about Pat Nixon, and I've only skimmed through this article (I'll read it more thoroughly soon). But I am concerned that maybe there should be a more complete list of sources.  If you search for "Pat Nixon" in Google Books, there are a lot of interesting-looking results.  For example, The Lonely Lady of San Clemente: The Story of Pat Nixon by Lester David (1978).  Is this a reputable biography?  If so, it ought to be mentioned in this Wikipedia article.  Another example is Secret Lives of the First Ladies by Cormac O'Brien and Monika Suteski.  O'Brien and Suteski have lots of interesting info; how much of it is already in this Wikipedia article?  —This is part of a comment by  Ferrylodge   which was interrupted by the following:
 * Pat Nixon urged a recount in 1960.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a terrific quote from her: "Oh but you just don’t realize how much fun he is! He’s just so much fun!"
 * It is a terrific quote, but I can't find it in that book. I'll keep looking in others, though. Happyme22 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, Nevermind, I've got it. Happyme22 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They say she left the table in tears when she heard he wanted to run for governor of California.
 * I think this article covers her dislike of politics and original opposition to the 1962 gubernatorial run pretty well. I'm also a little doubtful of the source in this instance, as it says she threatened suicide, something that I have never come across anywhere before. Her dislike of politics is clear, but suicide? I've never seen this anywhere else. Happyme22 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And, according to O'Brien and Suteski, in her first year as first lady alone, she shook hands with about a quarter million people.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which of these things are now covered in this Wikipedia article? I'm too lazy to carefully check myself. :-)

Plus I notice something else. Can you please confirm attribution for the quote "But this is not appropriate now. I avoid the spectacular"? I think it's now cited to a NY Times article, but actually is from the book Pat Nixon: The Untold Story.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the quote, which is now cited to Pat Nixon: The Untold Story, page 187. I will be sure to check out the O'Brien/Susteski book as well, because those are interesting points. Happyme22 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I suspect most people won't know what a "truck farm" is. Maybe linking here would help? Mention is made of her mother's first husband, so maybe it's worth mentioning that he had died in a flood in South Dakota? Regarding her degree, what exactly was it (e.g. a BS, PhD, Master's, et cetera)? And was it really a graduate degree, or an undergraduate degree? I would write: "Known as Dick, Nixon he asked Pat Ryan to marry him the first night they went out." I would also write: "During state dinners, he ordered the protocol changed so that Pat may could be served first." More later.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the NFLL cite, "University of Southern California, 1934 -1937, education and student training classes, B.S. Merchandising, with a certificate to teach at the high school level which USC gave the equivalence of a Master's degree." This raises an interesting question, because our Hillary Rodham Clinton article says she was the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree (law degree from Yale Law School).  How strong was this USC 'equivalence'?  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well I'll start with Ferrylodge: I've given a link to the Market gardening article, mentioned her mother's first husband's death, included her BS in merchandising. I've also changed the sentences you recommended accordingly.


 * WTR: That raises an interesting point. From what I know, the rankings are: graduate (BA or BS), post-graduate, master's, and doctorate. It seems that this graduate degree was awarded to Pat Nixon with the equivalance of a master's degree, making her the first to attain a master's. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Laura Bush attained post-graduate degrees, Clinton first. However, like you inquired, would Mrs. Nixon then be the first first lady to attain a post-graduate degree, because she would have had to to attain a master's. Or is there a way around that, in other words did USC skip the post-graduate and go straight to master's? Happyme22 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the changes. What did the Domestic Services Volunteer Act of 1970 do?  Seems like it ought to briefly described, or omitted.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've corrected the name of the bill and added its purpose. Happyme22 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Shouldn't the lead read 'Thelma Catherine "Pat" Ryan Nixon' not 'Thelma Catherine Ryan "Pat" Nixon'?  She was using "Pat" well before she met Nixon.  That she became most famous as Pat Nixon is covered later in that first paragraph.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, and I will change it to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I found it an interesting and well-written article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ferrylodge! You've helped out in more ways than I can count, and I am grateful. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, my pleasure. Good luck.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with comments. Generally well-written and informative.  A few quibbles, though:
 * 1) About the 1962 run -- "She eventually agreed to another run, citing that it meant a great deal to her husband," Maybe "stating" would read better than "citing"?
 * Sure, that would work. Happyme22 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Possibly link the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. I know it's a redlink now, but it may encourage someone to write it -- or would this make the article less FA-worthy?  If so, never mind.
 * It doesn't make the article less FA-worthy, but I don't think it does a great deal to promote the creation of the article. I had another red link, Victoria Brezhnev, and that was removed in a copyedit. Happyme22 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, articles shouldn't have redlinks for topics that are unlikely ever to get articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right). Viktoria Brezhnev (note spelling) was rarely seen in public, so I don't think there's enough material about her to justify a full article.  Also, redlinks get on my nerves, because many Wikipedia readers will not understand what they signify, but that's just my personal opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, I think it looks great -- nice work! --Coemgenus 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Happyme22 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Right at the opening to refer to her as "Pat" can't escape the suspicion that she's being treated differently because she's a woman. Can you imagine the article on her husband with "Richard" in the third sentence? I'd use "Pat Nixon" there. I think I'd noever use her first name by itself. Lots of alternatives, such as "Pat had long been irritated with the perception that the White House was exclusively for the wealthy and famous.[37] As First Lady, she would routinely come down from the family quarters to ..." --> "The First Lady had long been irritated with the perception that the White House was exclusively for the wealthy and famous:[37] she would routinely come down from the family quarters to ..." (then semicolong boundaries, since it's a long list, isn't it.) Keep it more formal. —This is part of a comment by Tony1   which was interrupted by the following:
 * Reffering to first ladies by their first names has been discussed before both at the peer review and the Nancy Reagan FAC. By always reffering to her as 'Nixon' could lead to confusion with her husband, so as a result of the discussion at the Nancy Reagan FAC, the MOS was amended to add this section. The Nancy Reagan article is featured, and it generally refers to her as Nancy in the text, occasionally Reagan and first lady, but only rarely as Mrs. Reagan. This should hold true for Pat Nixon as well. Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MOSLINK on the linking of common words, such as "charity". "Volunteerism" is probably the one worth linking, since it's an unusual term; you'd like the readers to hit that more, so avoid diluting it by presenting too much linking choice. Do we really need a link to "lung cancer" and "strokes"? The article needs an audit for such overlinking.
 * I think the links to lung cancer and strokes are warrented, as those two conditions greatly effected Pat Nixon's life. If a relatively uneducated reader came across those nouns, he/she may not know what they are without a wikilink. And I will request a copyedit for overlinking. Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a small thing, but you could lose the comma after "1993".
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch: "the first First Lady"; some way of rewording?
 * Perhaps "She was the first of the American First Ladies to..." Better? Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "She began life, she suspects, in a tent", a profile observed, "and seems to have spent the years of her youth getting out of it."—hmmm, this will confuse a lot of readers who aren't familiar with the culturally centric meaning of "she was born in a tent"—especially non-natives. Maybe retain, but I worry. Why not insert an explanatory note in the ref at the bottom?
 * True, this could cause confusion. I'll remove it. Done Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MOSLINK says don't link to the words for commonly known nations, nationalities etc. Where I'm looking, removal of such links would highlight your more useful piped link to "truck farmer". Get the idea behind the notion of disciplined linking? About HALF the links in the article could go. And I see "volunteerism" for a second time linked.
 * As I said above, I'll ask for a overlinking copyedit. Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "One of her major initiatives as First Lady was volunteerism, encouraging Americans to address social problems at the local level through volunteering at hospitals, civic organizations, rehabilitation centers, and the like."—Better "One of her major initiatives as First Lady was the promotion of volunteerism, in which she encouraged Americans to address social problems at the local level through volunteering at hospitals, civic organizations, and rehabilitation centers." I've removed the informal "and the like"; if you really need a subset term (see MoS), use ", such as through volunteering at ...".
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Our citation gurus know better than I, but my eye caught this: "Though her impact on public discourse was modest and of debatable importance, she did speak out in favor of women running for political office and encouraged her husband to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, saying "woman power is unbeatable; I've seen it all across this country."[40] Now, does ref 40 cover the apparently subjective comments "modest" and "debatable"?
 * That was added by User:Kitchawan, and I am not able to confirm that the New York Times article uses "modest" and "debatable". Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Use "logical" punctuation (see MoS): Author Carl Sferrazza Anthony wrote that, "the common man responded to Pat." How did women respond to her?
 * By 'man', Carl Sferazza Anthony was not simply reffering to men, but to people as a whole, for he goes on to describe men's and women's issues to which Pat responded. Nonetheless, in doing a bit more research, I have found that she was the first of the first ladies to publicly support the Equal Rights Amendment, belonged to several women's groups, and was pro-choice. However, according to Carl Sferazza Anthony, she wasn't a "strident feminist". Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tone: I'm a little concerned that the overall stance is just a little too much like what her paid biographer might have come up with. It's sort of complimentary in a bland way. Hard to know how to fix, but there are people more knowledgeable than I am at advising on that. Is it to do with your sourcing? Tony   (talk)  02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are good comments from Tony1, and I assume that Happyme22 will be addressing them all. I just thought I'd comment briefly about two of Tony's points: the question of how women reacted to Pat Nixon, and also the tone of a paid biographer.  Both of these comments might be addressed by expanding a bit on the material that the article already contains regarding Gloria Steinem, who of course has been a very well-known feminist and liberal Democrat.  Steinem once interviewed Pat Nixon, and had some fascinating comments about it:  "For the first time, I could see Mrs. Nixon’s connection with her husband: two people with great drive, and a deep suspicion that 'other people had it easy,' in her phrase, 'glamour boys' or 'buddy-buddy boys' in his, would somehow pull gracefully ahead of them in spite of all their work. Like gate-crashers at a party, they supported each other in a critical world. It must have been a very special hell for them, running against the Kennedys; as if all their deepest suspicions had been proved true."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Ferrylodge said, thanks for comments Tony. I will respond to them in the very near future, but I'm a little busy right now. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, thanks for the wonderful comments because you have helped out a lot. But I respectfully disagree with your issue about the overall tone of the article. As you will see, most of the sources are from New York Times articles, and the book First Ladies: The Saga of the Presidents' Wives and Their Power, 1961-1990 (Volume II) by author and historian Carl Sferazza Anthony. The New York Times has many articles on her, and I think we can deem those reliable, plus the first ladies book covers every first lady from Jacqueline Kennedy to Barbara Bush, and I don't think Mr. Anthony would take a special exception to heap praise on Pat Nixon. The major criticisms are in there, especially Plastic Pat (which I've just slightly amended). Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Support, with a slight reservation: I know this article quite well, having spent a lot of time with it at peer review. I raised the issue of the tone of the article after my initial read-through, as a result of which changes were made which lessened, without quite eliminating, my concerns. At the end of the review I suggested that someone previously uninvolved with the article be asked to read it, with a view to identifying remaining areas where a slightly more detached tone might be advisable. I wonder, was this done, and if so to what effect?
 * I never officially requested that anyone go through the article for any possible tone problems, though during the course of this four day FAC, User:Ferrylodge, User:Epbr123, and User:Efe have all copyedited it. Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have one or two minor quibbles as well:-
 * Later life section: the single-sentence first paragraph could be combined with the next.
 * I suppose so, but only for the sake of not having a one sentence paragraph. Done Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Same section, last para: Saying that her health problems "led to" bouts of oral cancer doesn't seem quite right. Suggest "developed into bouts of..." etc would be better.
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Death and funeral section: First line - the link on Park Ridge, New Jersey is unnecessary as the term is linked in the immediate preceding paragraph. You could avoid repetition by saying: "Pat Nixon died at her New Jersey Home, at 5.45. am..." etc
 * Done Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am close to supporting, but just want to ponder a bit longer on the question of neutral tone. I intend to read the article again, and if I think that there are still significant problems with the tone I will (a) tell you what I think they are and (b) offer suggestions as to how they may be resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good and thanks for the comments! --Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: I think that part of the "tone" problem arise from the repeated emphases on her being the "first First Lady" to do this that and the other, giving the impression of a perpetual bold innovator. In fact, some of these firsts arose more from the changing perceptions of womens' roles during her lifetime, and might have fallen to any First Lady occupying that role in the late sixties and early seventies. She was to an extent the beneficiary of change, rather than the instigator. Take the matter of her graduate degree. Of her predecessors, only Jacqueline Kennedy and possibly Lady Bird Johnson were born in an age where women could normally expect to be educated; the others didn't get the chance.

So, my recommendation is to cut out some of the "firsts" - the graduate degree, the address to the Republican convention, the Thanksgiving proclamation. Keep in those which redound to her individual credit, e.g. her support for ERA, and her visit to a combat zone. I think you will find that these simple changes will do a lot to deflect the criticism that the article is a little too friendly. Please consider. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, she was an innnovator to the role of the first lady. That's the plain truth, nothing POV about it. As People magazine says, "Pat was more like Hillary Clinton than Nancy Reagan, although the perception is the opposite." Perhaps some of the "firsts" could be checked out, but the two you mentioned -- graduate degree and the Thanksgiving proclomation -- are completely notable in themselves. The graduate degree issue was previously brought up on this page; while true that the perception of women changed during her lifetime, this is a fact which is prominently highlighted on her first ladiy biography. She issued the Thanksgiving proclamation due to the role that she undertook as first lady. She was not required to do it due to the time period, but chose to because of her self-definition of the ladyship. Other "firsts" on the page include: first Republican first lady to address a national convention, first first lady to visit a combat zone, and first first lady to visit Africa. The first Rebublican first lady contention is notable as well, IMO, simply because it highlights the action of a first lady (and from what it sounds like, a Democratic first lady must have previously appeared at the Democratic national convention) and many have followed suit. The first first lady to visit a combat zone is one of the most highly publicized events of her entire career. I feel that the Africa contention is notable as well, as it adds to the role of Mrs. Nixon as the most traveled first lady (later matched by Hillary Clinton). I don't really see a problem there.


 * Due to your comments, I have searched the Time Magazine archives to see more about her public image. There is a lot of information contained here, which describes more of the Plastic Pat, perfect wife and perception of that. I will add that in the Public perception section, and please see what you think. --Happyme22 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added some more about her perception into the "Public perception" section. Please see what you think. Happyme22 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that my comments have been interpreted as I intended. I wasn't advocating any significant rewrite or introduction of new material, merely the removal of a few "firsts" which, to me, seemed to arise primarily from the timing and circumstances of her First Ladyship. I suggested you consider this - I wasn't demanding action. You clearly have considered, and have attempted to meet my concerns, albeit in a different way.  I think your most recent changes are OK, but they don't greatly alter things, and I am certainly not asking you to do more. Subject to this one reservation, I am happy with the article as it stands, and this concern is insufficient to prevent me registering a Support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your comments, Brian, believe me. You have been such a help to this article, both in the peer review and here. And I'm not upset in the slightest; you gave constructive suggestions, and I gave responses. I happen to feel that the "firsts" were an important part of her ladyship, influenced by the times or not, and that they should stay. But as a result of your comments, I searched the Time magazine archives and found a few articles about her public perception, which I hope has added something beneficial. By saying, "I am happy with the article as it stands, and this concern is insufficient to prevent me registering a Support" does that mean you are supporting? Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, see above. I've struck my earlier "Comment" and replaced it with a Support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you! Happyme22 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.